1 1
bigbearfng

California sex offender law changes

Recommended Posts

Please tell me that no one here agrees that a up to 24 year old guy having "consensual" sex with your 14 year old daughter should not be convicted of a felony and be required to register as a sex offender for life! And how could you consider a 14 year to "give" consent to begin with never mind when she's no doubt been groomed by the guy for a year or more before that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one "agrees" with it in the sense that that's not the laws purpose.

It in actuality brings penalties for same-sex encounters into the same scope as they have been for straight ones - specifically whether the SO registration for life is mandatory or at discretion of the judge.

In practical terms and as an example, say you have a 16 year old and an 18 year old dating, and they get busy (by choice). Under the previous laws, if they were straight it might be a smack on the wrist at most. If they were gay, the 18yo is now branded a sex offender for the rest of their life. The amended law addresses that imbalance.

The judge can still apply the SO registration if the facts of the case warrant it, nothing has changed there.

Ultimately, this has been the usual outrage bait that makes for wonderfully incendiary headlines but doesn't hold up when you look at the actual details.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bigbearfng said:

Please tell me that no one here agrees that a up to 24 year old guy having "consensual" sex with your 14 year old daughter should not be convicted of a felony and be required to register as a sex offender for life! And how could you consider a 14 year to "give" consent to begin with never mind when she's no doubt been groomed by the guy for a year or more before that.

Hard to know exactly where to draw that line. But I'm with you, that is over the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bigbearfng said:

Please tell me that no one here agrees that a up to 24 year old guy having "consensual" sex with your 14 year old daughter should not be convicted of a felony and be required to register as a sex offender for life! And how could you consider a 14 year to "give" consent to begin with never mind when she's no doubt been groomed by the guy for a year or more before that.

I agree.

Now, let's say your 19 year old daughter was found having sex with her 17 year old friend (who claimed she was 18.)  Should she have to register as a sex offender?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mistercwood said:

Ultimately, this has been the usual outrage bait that makes for wonderfully incendiary headlines but doesn't hold up when you look at the actual details.

Yes, it seems likely to be that sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, bigbearfng said:

Please tell me that no one here agrees that a up to 24 year old guy having "consensual" sex with your 14 year old daughter should not be convicted of a felony and be required to register as a sex offender for life!

Note that the law allowed that before.  The law allows that now.  That hasn't changed.  If the age difference is less than ten years the judge can decide to not require the person to register as a sex offender.  That was passed in 1944 so that an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old wouldn't have to a sex crime on his record.  (In your case, of course, the judge would decide he WAS a sex offender.)

The only difference is that applies to LGBT people too.  It used to only apply to "regular" sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the victim was 14 and the guy 24 it would be filed as a felony and registration required. When she was 16 and 17 it would be a wobbler. eg.if she was mentally compromised then would still file felony. 

So yes it has changed, thats why they are changing the current law. There are already so many that got their case plead down so they're not even on the public database.  And for anyone that wants to defend this BS Id really like to see your reaction if it was your daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, bigbearfng said:

So yes it has changed, thats why they are changing the current law. There are already so many that got their case plead down so they're not even on the public database.  And for anyone that wants to defend this BS Id really like to see your reaction if it was your daughter.

You're not listening. If it was your daughter, and a dude, the law *already* is like this. It has been amended to not unevenly penalise LBGT people for the exact same actions.

EDIT: Just to be super clear - by all means have an issue with the current law and penalties in question. I'm saying to not be sucked in with the clickbait telling you that Cali lawmakers are making it easier for pedos to dodge the register. That's a lie.

Edited by mistercwood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mistercwood said:

You're not listening. If it was your daughter, and a dude, the law *already* is like this. It has been amended to not unevenly penalise LBGT people for the exact same actions.

EDIT: Just to be super clear - by all means have an issue with the current law and penalties in question. I'm saying to not be sucked in with the clickbait telling you that Cali lawmakers are making it easier for pedos to dodge the register. That's a lie.

That isn't exactly what my friend the California attorney is saying.

I'll post his response when I get time.

As I understand it - It does Both.  It lessens the penalty for all offenders and adds language for LGBT protection (Maybe should be called equality) since they were likely being over-penalized in relation to "straight" offenders, under the old wording.

But the jist of the reasoning behind it is two fold - Fairness, and, that there are too many cases to prosecute, so they are needing to lessen the burden on the courts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bigbearfng said:

And for anyone that wants to defend this BS Id really like to see your reaction if it was your daughter.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED in the situation you list (24 yr old guy 14 yr old girl.)  NOTHING.  The judge had discretion before.  He has discretion now.  What angers you about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ryoder said:

To put things in perspective, compare it to the other states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States

Hi Robert,

About 35 yrs ago, a guy I worked with found out one of his 15-yr old daughters was having sex with some guy about 20-21.  He tried to get the guy prosecuted.  But, the prosecutor told him, 'Nope, not as long as she consented,' which she had.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  IMO there is a lot of effort in this country to take away the judge's discretion ( people not being satisfied with the sentencing, etc ); so that is why the DA's now make those decisions.

 

Edited by JerryBaumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Robert,

About 35 yrs ago, a guy I worked with found out one of his 15-yr old daughters was having sex with some guy about 20-21.  He tried to get the guy prosecuted.  But, the prosecutor told him, 'Nope, not as long as she consented,' which she had.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  IMO there is a lot of effort in this country to take away the judge's discretion ( people not being satisfied with the sentencing, etc ); so that is why the DA's now make those decisions.

 

A close co-worker of mine a few years ago learned that his high school daughter was dating a guy in his early 20's. (IIRC there was ~8 year age difference). He had some heartburn about it, but the parents decided trying to do something about it would make things worse, not better. Last I heard, his daughter was in college, and still seeing the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ryoder said:

A close co-worker of mine a few years ago learned that his high school daughter was dating a guy in his early 20's. (IIRC there was ~8 year age difference). He had some heartburn about it, but the parents decided trying to do something about it would make things worse, not better. Last I heard, his daughter was in college, and still seeing the guy.

Hi Robert,

It's all about the hormones.  And, Mother Nature is not planning on making any changes.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well the law can be extreme in the other way too. In some states it is a major felony for someone 18 to have sex with someone who is 17.99, even if they dated for like five years prior to that. So as long as both are under 18 and consent is given, it's legal, but the second one of them turns 18, unless they were both born on the same day, the relationship is suddenly a serious crime and the guy could go to prison for 20 years over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, billvon said:
17 hours ago, bigbearfng said:

Please tell me that no one here agrees that a up to 24 year old guy having "consensual" sex with your 14 year old daughter should not be convicted of a felony and be required to register as a sex offender for life! And how could you consider a 14 year to "give" consent to begin with never mind when she's no doubt been groomed by the guy for a year or more before that.

I agree.

Now, let's say your 19 year old daughter was found having sex with her 17 year old friend (who claimed she was 18.)  Should she have to register as a sex offender?

But a 10 year spread?  Is that right?  I don't ever remember reading anything like that. The most I've seen was like like a 4-5 year spread typically starting at around the age of 16.

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Coreece said:

But a 10 year spread?  Is that right?

?? Do you mean "is it right that two people so far apart in age should have sex?"  Plenty of examples of that (including Trump.)

Do you mean "is it right that a 23 year old that has sex with a 14 year old not register as a sex offender?"  No, they should be registered.  Under the law the judge can (and most likely would) decide to do just that.  That was the law both before and after this bill.

However, if he is 26, then the judge does not have that option - he MUST register as a sex offender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billvon said:
1 hour ago, Coreece said:

But a 10 year spread?  Is that right?

?? Do you mean "is it right that two people so far apart in age should have sex?"  Plenty of examples of that (including Trump.)

No, I said the longest range I saw was 4-5 years starting at the age of 16.  So like a 16-year old little miss can't be wrong driving off to some college frat party and falling in love with Johnny Fever at ΣΑΕ.

 

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Do you mean "is it right that a 23 year old that has sex with a 14 year old not register as a sex offender?"  No, they should be registered.  Under the law the judge can (and most likely would) decide to do just that.  That was the law both before and after this bill.

I still think 10 years is a bit much.  17 and 27 may be one thing, (and that's a big MAYBE) but a judge shouldn't have to waste time listening to arguments over a 14 and 24 year old.  I mean wtf could they possibly say, that "she's wise beyond her years and that as a sexually mature woman she has the right to choose her lover?  It's her body - she can have a baby and even abort it without parental consent,  but she can't choose who the father might be?  Outrage!"

I mean I know it's ridiculous, but things are different in this ever changing progressive landscape - young aspiring home makers are hip to women's rights these days. . .they catch on quick!

Edited by Coreece

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Coreece said:

No, I said the longest range I saw was 4-5 years starting at the age of 16.  So like a 16-year old little miss can't be wrong driving off to some college frat party and falling in love with Johnny Fever at ΣΑΕ.

 

I still think 10 years is a bit much.  17 and 27 may be one thing, (and that's a big MAYBE) but a judge shouldn't have to waste time listening to arguments over a 14 and 24 year old.  I mean wtf could they possibly say, that "she's wise beyond her years and that as a sexually mature woman she has the right to choose her lover?  It's her body - she can have a baby and even abort it without parental consent,  but she can't choose who the father might be?  Outrage!"

I mean I know it's ridiculous, but things are different in this ever changing progressive landscape - young aspiring home makers are hip to women's rights these days. . .they catch on quick!

We align 100% on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Coreece said:

I still think 10 years is a bit much.  17 and 27 may be one thing, (and that's a big MAYBE) but a judge shouldn't have to waste time listening to arguments over a 14 and 24 year old. 

Agreed.  The law now allows for the judge to consider whether the 27 year guy should be labeled as a sex offender (depending on the circumstances) and the law now allows him to register the 24 year guy as a sex offender.  Again, nothing about that has changed.

What has changed NOW is that if your 18 year old daughter goes to college, goes through an experimental phase, and has sex with a 17 year old freshman woman who said she was 18, the judge can decide to not permanently label her as a sex offender.  And that's a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, billvon said:

Agreed.  The law now allows for the judge to consider whether the 27 year guy should be labeled as a sex offender (depending on the circumstances) and the law now allows him to register the 24 year guy as a sex offender.  Again, nothing about that has changed.

What has changed NOW is that if your 18 year old daughter goes to college, goes through an experimental phase, and has sex with a 17 year old freshman woman who said she was 18, the judge can decide to not permanently label her as a sex offender.  And that's a good thing.

Does it not also reduce statutory rape for non-straight people to a misdemeanor? Equaling the previous for straight SR? 

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Does it not also reduce statutory rape for non-straight people to a misdemeanor? Equaling the previous for straight SR? 

I didn't read this correctly the first time but I think... yes? Assuming that stat rape was not a felony for hetero engagements, yes.

My understanding is the explicit change in the language of the existing law was to add anal and oral intercourse, whereas it had previously only stated vaginal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1